SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Climate Services”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: Average Annual Daily Minimum Temperature, 2002

This data set represents the average monthly minimum temperature in Celsius multiplied by 100 for 2002 compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data were the Near-Real-Time High-Resolution Monthly Average Maximum/Minimum Temperature for the Conterminous United States for 2002 raster dataset produced by the Spatial Climate Analysis Service at Oregon State University. The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗

USGS2010

Attributes for MRB_E2RF1 Catchments by Major Rivers Basins in the Conterminous United States: Total Precipitation, 2002

This tabular data set represents the catchment-average total precipitation in millimeters multiplied by 100 for 2002, compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of selected Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data were the Near-Real-Time Monthly High-Resolution Precipitation Climate Data Set for the Conterminous United States (2002) raster data set produced by the Spatial Climate Analysis Service at Oregon State University. The MRB_E2RF1 catchments are based on a modified version of the Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ERF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002; Brakebill and others, 2011). Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering New England and Mid-Atlantic (MRB1), South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5), the Rio Grande, Colorado, and the Great basin (MRB6), the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins, and California (MRB8).

Data Series↗

USGS2010

Attributes for MRB_E2RF1 Catchments by Major River Basins in the Conterminous United States: Average Daily Maximum Temperature, 2002

This tabular data set represents the average daily maximum temperature in Celsius multiplied by 100 for 2002, compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of selected Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data were the Near-Real-Time High-Resolution Monthly Average Maximum/Minimum Temperature for the Conterminous United States for 2002 raster data set produced by the Spatial Climate Analysis Service at Oregon State University. The MRB_E2RF1 catchments are based on a modified version of the Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ERF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002; Brakebill and others, 2008). Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering New England and Mid-Atlantic (MRB1), South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5), the Rio Grande, Colorado, and the Great basin (MRB6), the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins, and California (MRB8).

Data Series↗

USGS2010

Attributes for MRB_E2RF1 Catchments by Major River Basins in the Conterminous United States: Average Daily Minimum Temperature, 2002

This tabular data set represents the average daily minimum temperature in Celsius multiplied by 100 for 2002, compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of selected Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data were the Near-Real-Time High-Resolution Monthly Average Maximum/Minimum Temperature for the Conterminous United States for 2002 raster data set produced by the Spatial Climate Analysis Service at Oregon State University. The MRB_E2RF1 catchments are based on a modified version of the Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ERF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002; Brakebill and others, 2011). Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering New England and Mid-Atlantic (MRB1), South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5), the Rio Grande, Colorado, and the Great basin (MRB6), the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins, and California (MRB8).

Data Series↗

USGS2009

A New Map of Standardized Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Conterminous United States

A new map of standardized, mesoscale (tens to thousands of hectares) terrestrial ecosystems for the conterminous United States was developed by using a biophysical stratification approach. The ecosystems delineated in this top-down, deductive modeling effort are described in NatureServe's classification of terrestrial ecological systems of the United States. The ecosystems were mapped as physically distinct areas and were associated with known distributions of vegetation assemblages by using a standardized methodology first developed for South America. This approach follows the geoecosystems concept of R.J. Huggett and the ecosystem geography approach of R.G. Bailey. Unique physical environments were delineated through a geospatial combination of national data layers for biogeography, bioclimate, surficial materials lithology, land surface forms, and topographic moisture potential. Combining these layers resulted in a comprehensive biophysical stratification of the conterminous United States, which produced 13,482 unique biophysical areas. These were considered as fundamental units of ecosystem structure and were aggregated into 419 potential terrestrial ecosystems. The ecosystems classification effort preceded the mapping effort and involved the independent development of diagnostic criteria, descriptions, and nomenclature for describing expert-derived ecological systems. The aggregation and labeling of the mapped ecosystem structure units into the ecological systems classification was accomplished in an iterative, expert-knowledge-based process using automated rulesets for identifying ecosystems on the basis of their biophysical and biogeographic attributes. The mapped ecosystems, at a 30-meter base resolution, represent an improvement in spatial and thematic (class) resolution over existing ecoregionalizations and are useful for a variety of applications, including ecosystem services assessments, climate change impact studies, biodiversity conservation, and resource management.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2020

On the robustness of annual daily precipitation maxima estimates over Monsoon Asia

Understanding precipitation extremes over Monsoon Asia is vital for water resource management and hazard mitigation, but there are many gaps and uncertainties in observations in this region. To better understand observational uncertainties, this study uses a high-resolution validation dataset to assess the consistency of the representation of annual daily precipitation maxima (Rx1day) over land in 13 observational datasets from the Frequent Rainfall Observations on Grids (FROGS) database. The FROGS datasets are grouped into three categories: in situ -based and satellite-based with and without corrections to rain gauges. We also look at three sub-regions: Japan, India, and the Maritime Continent based on their different station density, orography, and coastal complexity. We find broad similarities in spatial and temporal distributions among in situ -based products over Monsoon Asia. Satellite products with correction to rain gauges show better general agreement and less inter-product spread than their uncorrected counterparts. However, this comparison also reveals strong sub-regional differences that can be explained by the quantity and quality of rain gauges. High consistency in spatial and temporal patterns are observed over Japan, which has a dense station network, while large inter-product spread is found over the Maritime Continent and India, which have sparser station density. We also highlight that while corrected satellite products show improvement compared to uncorrected products in regions of high station density (e.g., Japan) they have mixed success over other regions (e.g., India and the Maritime Continent). In addition, the length of record available at each station can also affect the satellite correction over these poorly sampled regions. Results of the additional comparison between all considered datasets and the sub-regional high resolution dataset remain the same, indicating that the overall quality of the station network has implications for the reliability of the in situ -based products derived and also the satellite products that use a correction to in situ data. Given these uncertainties in observations, there is no single best dataset for assessment of Rx1day in Monsoon Asia. In all cases we recommend users understand how each dataset is produced in order to select the most appropriate product to estimate precipitation extremes to fit their purpose.

Frontiers in Climate Services↗

USGS2018

Wetlands in a changing climate: Science, policy and management

Part 1 of this review synthesizes recent research on status and climate vulnerability of freshwater and saltwater wetlands, and their contribution to addressing climate change (carbon cycle, adaptation, resilience). Peatlands and vegetated coastal wetlands are among the most carbon rich sinks on the planet sequestering approximately as much carbon as do global forest ecosystems. Estimates of the consequences of rising temperature on current wetland carbon storage and future carbon sequestration potential are summarized. We also demonstrate the need to prevent drying of wetlands and thawing of permafrost by disturbances and rising temperatures to protect wetland carbon stores and climate adaptation/resiliency ecosystem services. Preventing further wetland loss is found to be important in limiting future emissions to meet climate goals, but is seldom considered. In Part 2, the paper explores the policy and management realm from international to national, subnational and local levels to identify strategies and policies reflecting an integrated understanding of both wetland and climate change science. Specific recommendations are made to capture synergies between wetlands and carbon cycle management, adaptation and resiliency to further enable researchers, policy makers and practitioners to protect wetland carbon and climate adaptation/resiliency ecosystem services.

Wetlands↗

USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Southeast Climate Science Center

In 2008, the U.S. Congress authorized the establishment of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Housed administratively within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NCCWSC is part of the DOI’s ongoing mission to meet the challenges of climate change and its effects on wildlife and aquatic resources. From 2010 through 2012, NCCWSC established eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs). Each of these regional CSCs operated with the mission to “synthesize and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources” (Salazar 2009). The model developed by NCCWSC for the regional CSCs employed a dual approach of a federal USGS-staffed component and a parallel host-university component established competitively through a 5-year cooperative agreement with NCCWSC. At the conclusion of this 5-year agreement, a review of each CSC was undertaken, with the Southeast Climate Science Center (SE CSC) review in February 2016. The SE CSC is hosted by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is physically housed within the NCSU Department of Applied Ecology along with the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CFWRU), and the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southeast Regional Climate Hub is based at NCSU as is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Climate Center, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NOAA National Weather Service, the State Climate Office of North Carolina, and the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. This creates a strong core of organizations operating in close proximity focused on climate issues. The geographic area covered by the SE CSC represents all or part of 16 states and the Caribbean Islands and has overlapping boundaries with seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): Appalachian LCC, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, Gulf Coast Prairie LCC, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, South Atlantic LCC, and Caribbean LCC. The SE CSC region also encompasses 134 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and 89 National Park Service (NPS) units and is home to 11 federally recognized and 54 state recognized tribes.

Report↗

USGS2011

Prototyping an online wetland ecosystem services model using open model sharing standards

Great interest currently exists for developing ecosystem models to forecast how ecosystem services may change under alternative land use and climate futures. Ecosystem services are diverse and include supporting services or functions (e.g., primary production, nutrient cycling), provisioning services (e.g., wildlife, groundwater), regulating services (e.g., water purification, floodwater retention), and even cultural services (e.g., ecotourism, cultural heritage). Hence, the knowledge base necessary to quantify ecosystem services is broad and derived from many diverse scientific disciplines. Building the required interdisciplinary models is especially challenging as modelers from different locations and times may develop the disciplinary models needed for ecosystem simulations, and these models must be identified and made accessible to the interdisciplinary simulation. Additional difficulties include inconsistent data structures, formats, and metadata required by geospatial models as well as limitations on computing, storage, and connectivity. Traditional standalone and closed network systems cannot fully support sharing and integrating interdisciplinary geospatial models from variant sources. To address this need, we developed an approach to openly share and access geospatial computational models using distributed Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques and open geospatial standards. We included a means to share computational models compliant with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Web Processing Services (WPS) standard to ensure modelers have an efficient and simplified means to publish new models. To demonstrate our approach, we developed five disciplinary models that can be integrated and shared to simulate a few of the ecosystem services (e.g., water storage, waterfowl breeding) that are provided by wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America.

Environmental Modelling and Software↗

USGS2026

Climate and natural hazard analysis for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

Understanding potential changes in the frequency and severity of climate-related hazards is critical for supporting long-term strategic planning and community resilience for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved Hazard Mitigation Plans are one tool the Tribal Nation uses to identify, assess, and reduce risks associated with changing conditions. However, obtaining the climate information needed for the Hazard Mitigation Plan can be challenging due to time constraints, the large number of tools and datasets, and barriers to data accessibility. At the Tribal Nation’s request, the Climate Adaptation Technical Services team from the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Adaptation Science Center provided data, visualizations, and supporting resources to inform their Hazard Mitigation Plan update, which is due to FEMA in mid-2027. This report creates a foundation for updating previously included information and incorporating future climate projections for the first time, with a focus on near-term planning needs. Designed as a non-interpretive resource, this report supports ongoing data acquisition and informed decision-making. Specific outputs from this effort include (1) historical hazards and climate conditions data and visualizations, (2) future climate projection data and visualizations, (3) a synthesis of scientific literature describing potential climate change impacts on hazards, and (4) guidance on tools, datasets, and resources to support future updates.

Minnesota↗

USGS2018

Historical and projected climate in the northern Rockies Region

Climate influences the ecosystem services we obtain from forest and rangelands. Climate is described by the long-term characteristics of precipitation, temperature, wind, snowfall, and other measures of weather that occur over a long period in a particular place, and is typically expressed as long-term average conditions. Resource management practices are implemented day-to-day in response to weather conditions; resource management strategies and plans are developed using our understanding of climate. With the need to consider climate change in planning and management, an understanding of how climate may change in the future in a resource management planning area is valuable. In this chapter, we present the current understanding of potential changes in climate for the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USFS) Northern Region and the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), hereafter called the Northern Rockies region.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS2026

Resources to inform the 2026 Colorado Climate Preparedness Roadmap: Compound hazards and associated public health implications

Changing environmental conditions are increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather and environmental hazards, including heat waves, wildfires, drought, reduced water quality, and degraded air quality from ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter pollution (AghaKouchak et al., 2020; Bolinger et al., 2024; Colorado Health Institute, 2023a; Fann et al., 2015; IPCC, 2023a; Nagamoto et al., 2024; Nolte et al., 2018, 2021; Zscheischler et al., 2020). Strong scientific evidence indicates that climate change will increase risks to public health and safety throughout the 21st century, particularly through compound climate events (AghaKouchak et al., 2020; Cascio, 2018; Childs et al., 2022; Ebi, 2025; IPCC, 2023a, 2023b; Ma et al., 2024; Marlier et al., 2026; National Academy of Medicine, 2025; Reid et al., 2016; Reid & Maestas, 2019; Simpson et al., 2023; van den Hurk et al., 2023; Volckens, 2024; Zscheischler et al., 2018, 2020). Compound hazards, which are co-occurring or sequential hazards such as heat waves occurring alongside drought, wildfire, and poor air quality from smoke, can amplify public health risks beyond the effects of individual hazards alone (Marlier et al., 2026; Zscheischler et al., 2020). In Colorado, compound climate events with clear implications for public health are already evident (see “Core definitions” section for additional context on compound climate events). Recent statewide assessments have documented increasing heat waves, drought, and wildfires linked to rising temperatures, while emerging data show that climate change is reversing decades of air quality improvements through increased O3 and fine particulate matter pollution due to wildfire, and increased aerosolized topsoil (i.e., dust) due to drought (Bolinger et al., 2024; Childs et al., 2022; Fann et al., 2015; Ghanbari et al., 2023; Larsen et al., 2022; Nolte et al., 2018, 2021; Volckens, 2024). These environmental shifts are associated with increases in eye and kidney-health related concerns, heat-related illness, exacerbations of asthma and other respiratory conditions, increased risk of infectious disease, cardiovascular stress, and mental health impacts, with disparities in risk for children, older adults, outdoor workers, and communities with existing health and economic vulnerabilities (Baraghoshi et al., 2023; Butler-Dawson et al., 2026; Cascio, 2018; Cleland et al., 2022; Colorado Health Institute, 2023a; Grover et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2024; Macaluso et al., 2024; Marlier et al., 2026; National Academy of Medicine, 2025; Patnaik et al., 2024; Peters et al., 2019; Reid et al., 2016; Reid & Maestas, 2019). The state is actively pursuing strategies to mitigate the risks of these compound climate events on the public, including expanding climate and health surveillance, strengthening early-warning systems and public communication around smoke and air quality, and developing integrated policy agendas that link climate mitigation, adaptation, and health equity (CDPHE, 2025; Colorado Health Institute, 2023b; Zemaitis & Bailey, 2024). For example, state and partner organizations have articulated cross-sector goals to prepare for health impacts related to extreme heat, wildfires, flooding, drought, declines in water quality, and poor air quality, including updating workplace safety protocols, enhancing community-based resilience, adapting clinical care assessments to include climate-related stressors, and improving access to mental and behavioral health services following climate-related disasters (Colorado Health Institute, 2023b; CDPHE, 2025; Zemaitis & Bailey, 2024). To better prepare for current risks and make informed decisions, more information is needed, including methods to analyze historical and projected conditions in near real time, characterize interactions among compound hazards, and translate climate and air quality science into actionable guidance for public health agencies, health care systems, and communities across Colorado (Ebi, 2025; Marlier et al., 2026; National Academy of Medicine, 2025; Simpson et al., 2023; Zscheischler et al., 2018). For this report, we focus on extreme heat and outdoor air quality (ozone [O3] and fine particulate matter [PM2.5]) as the main compound hazards causing compound climate events, given that 1) the state of Colorado has experienced poor air quality for some time, 2) these climate events are affecting large population numbers, and 3) there is capacity to consider and respond to these climate-driven events.

Colorado↗

USGS2017

Final Report fr critical thresholds and ecosystem services for coastal ecological and human climate adaptation

Understanding how climate change will impact natural and human communities is a crucial part of decision making and management related to the protection of our coasts. As the effects of climate change on ecological communities grow, the possibility of crossing tipping points or thresholds of viability increases the potential for rapid and possibly irreversible changes in ecosystems. Therefore, understanding thresholds related to climate change is critical for facilitating conservation and management actions, which could help to prevent more costly and possibly catastrophic effects in the future. As part of a broad effort to synthesize and deliver coastal resilience information through the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), Climate Science Centers, states, and other partners along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, we synthesized existing quantitative threshold information for 45 priority coastal fish, wildlife, and plant species and habitats in response to sea level rise and storm projections. Additional information was synthesized on climate change adaptation actions that can increase the persistence and resilience of species and their habitats and how these actions relate to human community resilience. In addition to two peer-reviewed manuscripts, results from these synthesis efforts were disseminated online through easily accessible, topic-specific web pages in the Massachusetts Wildlife Climate Action Tool (climateactiontool.org) to make this information more easily accessible to stakeholders across the region. The compilation and dissemination of species and habitat threshold information will help to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how natural systems will respond to climate change and how land and resource management decisions could potentially help these species.

Report↗

USGS2025

Accurately characterizing climate change scenario planning in the U.S. National Park Service: Comment on Murphy et al. 2023

We more accurately locate the boundary between current practice and research priorities regarding climate change scenario planning in U.S. federal land management agencies by supplementing the characterization in a recent article (“Understanding perceptions of climate change scenario planning in United States public land management agencies”) of its use in the U.S. National Park Service. Accurately reflecting the full depth and breadth of efforts to streamline and mainstream the method for climate change adaptation planning in the U.S. National Park Service provides readers helpful guidance and resources called for by Murphy et al.

Society and Natural Resources↗

USGS2010

Simulation of Runoff and Reservoir Inflow for Use in a Flood-Analysis Model for the Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, 2004-2006

A model was developed to simulate inflow to reservoirs and watershed runoff to streams during three high-flow events between September 2004 and June 2006 for the main-stem subbasin of the Delaware River draining to Trenton, N.J. The model software is a modified version of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS), a modular, physically based, distributed-parameter modeling system developed to evaluate the impacts of various combinations of precipitation, climate, and land use on surface-water runoff and general basin hydrology. The PRMS model simulates time periods associated with main-stem flooding that occurred in September 2004, April 2005, and June 2006 and uses both daily and hourly time steps. Output from the PRMS model was formatted for use as inflows to a separately documented reservoir and riverrouting model, the HEC-ResSim model, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center to evaluate flooding. The models were integrated through a graphical user interface. The study area is the 6,780 square-mile watershed of the Delaware River in the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York that drains to Trenton, N.J. A geospatial database was created for use with a geographic information system to assist model discretization, determine land-surface characterization, and estimate model parameters. The USGS National Elevation Dataset at 100-meter resolution, a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), was used for model discretization into streams and hydrologic response units. In addition, geospatial processing was used to estimate initial model parameters from the DEM and other data layers, including land use. The model discretization represents the study area using 869 hydrologic response units and 452 stream segments. The model climate data for point stations were obtained from multiple sources. These sources included daily data for 22 National Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative Climate Station network stations, hourly data for 15 stations from the National Climatic Data Center, hourly data for 1 station from the NWS Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center records, and daily and hourly data for 7 stations operated by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. The NWS Multisensor Precipitation Estimate data set for 2001-2007 was used for computing daily precipitation for the model and for computing hourly precipitation for storm simulation periods. Calibration of the PRMS model included regression and optimization algorithms, as well as manual adjustments of model parameters. The general goal of the calibration procedure was to minimize the difference between discharge measured at USGS streamgages and the corresponding discharge simulated by the model. Daily streamflow data from 35 USGS streamgages were used in model calibration. The streamflow data represent areas draining from 20.2 to 6,780 square miles. The PRMS model simulates reservoir inflow and watershed runoff for use as input into HECResSim for the purpose of evaluating and comparing the effects of different watershed conditions on main-stem flooding in the Delaware River watershed draining to Trenton, N.J. The PRMS model is useful as a planning tool to simulate the effects of land-use changes and different antecedent conditions on local runoff and reservoir inflow and, as input to the HEC-ResSim model, on flood flows in the main stem of the Delaware River.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2019

Final Report for Phase 1 - USGS-NE CSC and USFS-NRS Cooperative Research on Climate-Vulnerable Habitats and Species in the Northeast

The US Forest Service (USFS) and Northeast Climate (Adaptation) Science Center (NE CASC) came together to focus research and management cooperation on the topic of the impacts of climate change on forested ecosystems. This work had 3 primary components: 1) modeling headwater stream refugia; 2) investigating resilience and resistance strategies for New England forests; and 3) studying the impact of climate change on forest mammal communities. USFS and NE CASC organizations have complimentary expertise to share in order to improve natural resource management in the critical montane and headwater habitats in the region, and worked together to use this expertise in advancing science and science support for natural resource adaptation to a changing climate. This work resulted in increased understanding of the direct, indirect, and interactive responses of at-risk coldwater, montane and northern species to a changing climate; 2) the development of approaches and strategies for adaptation, including identification of potential climate refugia; and 3) interactive platforms for data, models and forecasts to communicate these and related results to the conservation and management community.

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ke↗

USGS2013

Key landscape ecology metrics for assessing climate change adaptation options: Rate of change and patchiness of impacts

Under a changing climate, devising strategies to help stakeholders adapt to alterations to ecosystems and their services is of utmost importance. In western North America, diminished snowpack and river flows are causing relatively gradual, homogeneous (system-wide) changes in ecosystems and services. In addition, increased climate variability is also accelerating the incidence of abrupt and patchy disturbances such as fires, floods and droughts. This paper posits that two key variables often considered in landscape ecology—the rate of change and the degree of patchiness of change—can aid in developing climate change adaptation strategies. We use two examples from the “borderland” region of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. In piñon-juniper woodland die-offs that occurred in the southwestern United States during the 2000s, ecosystem services suddenly crashed in some parts of the system while remaining unaffected in other locations. The precise timing and location of die-offs was uncertain. On the other hand, slower, homogeneous change, such as the expected declines in water supply to the Colorado River delta, will likely impact the entire ecosystem, with ecosystem services everywhere in the delta subject to alteration, and all users likely exposed. The rapidity and spatial heterogeneity of faster, patchy climate change exemplified by tree die-off suggests that decision-makers and local stakeholders would be wise to operate under a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance,” and implement adaptation strategies that allow ecosystem service users to equitably share the risk of sudden loss of ecosystem services before actual ecosystem changes occur. On the other hand, in the case of slower, homogeneous, system-wide impacts to ecosystem services as exemplified by the Colorado River delta, adaptation strategies can be implemented after the changes begin, but will require a fundamental rethinking of how ecosystems and services are used and valued. In sum, understanding how the rate of change and degree of patchiness of change will constrain adaptive options is a critical consideration in preparing for climate change.

Colorado River Delta↗

USGS2022

BIA branch of tribal climate resilience regional assessment report

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Branch of Tribal Climate Resilience (TCR) was established in 2011 to enable Tribal and BIA Office of Trust Services Programs to incorporate climate considerations into their programs' planning and decision-making. The TCR’s purpose is to fulfill trust responsibility to Federally recognized Tribal Nations by supporting and building Tribal capacity for climate resilience efforts through both technical and financial assistance. That financial assistance includes the TCR Annual Awards Program in which over 700 awards have been distributed totaling more than $74 million as of September 24th, 2021. The TCR has funded over 250 adaptation plans and vulnerability and risk assessments over the last 11 years. Tribes can leverage TCR programs to further support their existing operations, program planning, project design, as well as incorporate Indigenous and Traditional Knowledges into their management and protection of Trust resources and Tribal economies. Due to the availability of TCR awards and other funding, many Tribes now have climate adaptation plans. Thus, both TCR and Tribes are at a new stage compared to a decade ago and have new needs related to implementation of climate adaptation and resiliency projects. This assessment aims to evaluate the effectiveness of TCR’s Annual Awards Program and technical assistance and incorporate direct Tribal input to meet Tribal needs and priorities. To provide more effective assistance to Tribal communities moving forward; BIA staff, in partnership with staff from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), interviewed 16 Tribal employees to gather their feedback on their approaches to climate adaptation as well as their experiences with TCR services. This report aims to summarize guidance from participating Tribes to inform future changes to BIA TCR.

Regional Assessment Report↗